This seems to be mostly about fairly low-level employment, where average job satisfaction and loyalty are probably lower than they are higher up the scale, but I'm not sure. Pay to quit is new to me, but sounds as if it could be a good way to speed up the attrition rate for bored workers, and give a helping hand to those destined for higher things in the long run.

Thinking back on my IBM UK Labs career during the heady days of the 60s and 70s, when product development cycles were five years or more and the lab wasn't big enough to run a series of overlapping projects, I remember people talking during the gaps between one project and the next of being paid too much to take the big step of leaving, even if that could well have led to faster career advancement. Of course, that was exacerbated by the fact that it would also mean moving a young family to somewhere unknown, sometimes more than a hundred miles away.

I couldn't make much sense of the comments about invention. IBM had a suggestion scheme that encouraged people to submit ideas for improvements, mostly paying prizes based on cost savings (the ones that scored well were unit cost reduction ideas coming from people in the manufacturing plants).

At first glance, Pay to Quit looks like a bit of a minefield. There must be situations where the job is clearly not working out, and the employee decides to leave - to the benefit of employee and employer alike. But with Pay to Quit, the employee might be more likely to stay on until the next round or until the payment has reached the highest level - which is not what the employer would want. Then there are legal issues. What if there is a genuine dispute between employee and employer - the sort that would normally go to some form of arbitration or tribunal? Could the employer be accused of using Pay to Quit as a way of circumventing the employee's legal rights? Or maybe the employer would suspend Pay to Quit for employees in that situation, which could in itself lead to further legal problems?

On the other hand, if Amazon are doing it, they have presumably thought through all these issues (they are probably a little more experienced in these matters than I am). It will be interesting to know how it works out in the long term.

Re working from home. Nothing new there.

Re "failure and invention", like Chabrenas I don't get what this is about, unless it's an old fashioned suggestion scheme under a new new name.

Only in the USA do such things work - hiring and firing is easy, job security low to nil.

The senior VP my wife reported to was asked to collect his boss from the airport one day. He turned up at the airport, and drove the man to the manufacturing site, into the executive car park.
The boss got out of the car, gave the VP a letter saying "You're fired", and told him to leave the car keys with the security man.

Given that level of job security in the US, wouldn't you be grateful for a chance to hang on for the cash offer?

Only in the USA do such things work - hiring and firing is easy, job security low to nil.

The senior VP my wife reported to was asked to collect his boss from the airport one day. He turned up at the airport, and drove the man to the manufacturing site, into the executive car park.
The boss got out of the car, gave the VP a letter saying "You're fired", and told him to leave the car keys with the security man.

Given that level of job security in the US, wouldn't you be grateful for a chance to hang on for the cash offer?

You're right. He would never have got away with that anywhere else. I hope the VP remembered to let down the tyres.

That said, the article didn't mention anything about Pay to Quit being specific to the US. I still think it could open a legal can of worms for Amazon, at least in some of the countries where they operate.

Job security in the US is nil. Jobs in the US are nil. Any type of manual labor job you can expect to be used, abused and thrown away. The TRUE level of unemployment is staggering. After almost 20 years of shipping every manufacturing job overseas, not much is left. Lower end wage scale workers have all been shifted pretty much to the service sector. (Think Walmart and Starbucks) With the last round of economic downturn, and the housing crisis, the middle class is steadily being eroded. The US is rapidly moving towards a two-class society. Because workers know they can't depend on, or trust their employers, most start looking for another job the minute they get one, if they can find one. Since workers know they can be fired any minute, most feel no hesitation in walking off the job at a moments notice either. Any level of job satisfaction is a farce. The game is rigged, and it is rigged in favor of the 1%. Hence, "Pay to Quit." Amazon knows many are just waiting until something better pops up. It makes more sense to them to pay to get rid of them, and quit paying higher rates, when they can get someone new in for a lower rate. Trust me, Amazon knows exactly what it is doing.